Fuentes v. Shah et al
Filing
101
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 1/17/2012. Plaintiff's motion to compel part of his medical records is granted in part (d/e 84). The motion to strike by Defendants Shah and Williams is denied as moot (d/e 97). Plaintiff's mo tions for leave to file amended complaints are denied (d/e's 87, 99). Pursuant to the Court's order of December 13, 2011, Defendant Ren is dismissed, without prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to locate her for service. Defendant "John Doe" is terminated, as this Defendant appears to be Defendant Fuqua, who has already been served, and because Plaintiff has failed to otherwise identify John Doe for service. (MAS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 17 January, 2012 01:34:06 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
DAVID FUENTES
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. VIPIN SHAH et al.,
Defendants.
11-CV-3073
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff pursues claims alleging deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs regarding his spina bifida, spinal cord injuries, and
soy intolerance. Several motions are before the Court, addressed in turn
below.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1)
Plaintiff’s motion to compel part of his medical records is
granted in part (d/e 84). The motion is denied as to Defendants Dr. Shah
and Williams, who have already produced the medical records they have.
1
The motion is granted as to Defendant Fuqua regarding Plaintiff’s
medical records from 2000 to 2006, to the extent not already produced.
Plaintiff asserts that these records disclose treatment of his medical
conditions, making them potentially relevant. Defendant Fuqua has not
identified any undue burden in producing these records to Plaintiff.
2) The motion to strike by Defendants Shah and Williams is
denied as moot (d/e 97).
3) Plaintiff’s motions for leave to file amended complaints are
denied (d/e’s 87, 99). Leave to amend should be “freely give[n] when
justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), but “district courts have
broad discretion to deny leave to amend where there is undue delay, bad
faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, undue
prejudice to the defendants, or where the amendment would be futile.”
Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788, 796 (7th Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff’s motions to amend are unnecessary to the extent he seeks
to expand on his existing claims against the existing Defendants. To the
extent Plaintiff seeks to inject new claims and new defendants, he does
2
not explain his delay. Plaintiff filed his original complaint in March
2011, and discovery deadlines were set in September 2011. Plaintiff now
seeks to add a new doctor defendant, Dr. Zhang, regarding lack of
treatment from 2010 in Stateville Correctional Center. Plaintiff does not
explain why Dr. Zhang was not included earlier. Plaintiff also does not
explain why he has delayed seeking to add Wexford Health Sources, Inc.,
but, in any event, he states no plausible claim that Wexford has an
unconstitutional policy that caused the deprivation of his rights.
Wexford cannot be liable for Defendant Ren’s actions simply because
Wexford was Ren’s employer. Iskander v. Village of Forest Park, 690
F.2d 126, 128 (7th Cir. 1982)(no 42 U.S.C. § 1983 respondeat superior
liability for municipality or private corporation). Accordingly, the
motions to amend are denied for reasons of undue delay and futility.
4) Pursuant to the Court’s order of December 13, 2011, Defendant
Ren is dismissed, without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to locate her for
service.
5) Defendant “John Doe” is terminated, as this Defendant appears
3
to be Defendant Fuqua, who has already been served, and because
Plaintiff has failed to otherwise identify John Doe for service.
ENTERED:
January 17, 2012
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?